Surveillance camera picture quality? Seems like every time they show a surveillance pic or video on TV it looks so distorted and blurry it's useless. Like the ones shown of a bank...

johnsnap1947 Loc: New Fairfield, CT

Seems like every time they show a surveillance pic or video on TV it looks so distorted and blurry it's useless. Like the ones shown of a bank robber, store burglar, knockout games, street videos, etc. And then they say "if anyone recognizes this person/s please call police". You've got to be kidding! Might as well keep that hoodie on over the face. With today's technology these pics should be crystal clear. Is the media purposely blurring these photos? I just don't get it...Any ideas?

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I can understand a small store installing cheap equipment. They just want to have the cameras there as a deterrent. But banks!!!! They can afford some decent cameras to protect our money!!!

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

In many cases, businesses have a contract with a security service company to set up, install and maintain the cameras. These security service companies in turn cut corners wherever possible to maximize their profits... often resulting in inexpensive, barely functioning video surveillance system equipment. Although I'm sure there are security service companies willing to install better video cameras - at a price.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

You know, cell phones take better video than you see in these shots.

johnsnap1947 Loc: New Fairfield, CT

I would think that the purpose of these cameras is to aid in Identifying a person or object. They don't even come close. They don't need to reveal how many pimples the person has, but should be able to show that he/she has a nose, mouth and eyes..Oh well think I'll hang unto my money...

twindad Loc: SW Michigan, frolicking in the snow.

rook2c4 wrote:

In many cases, businesses have a contract with a security service company to set up, install and maintain the cameras. These security service companies in turn cut corners wherever possible to maximize their profits... often resulting in inexpensive, barely functioning video surveillance system equipment. Although I'm sure there are security service companies willing to install better video cameras - at a price.

Well, having been in the security business since 1979, I can assure you that very good cameras exist. They are very expensive, both to install, and to maintain. If I propose a system to a commercial property that includes, say, a dozen cameras at 1500 bucks per unit, or a dozen at 400 bucks each, which do you think they'll go for? Unless you want to light up a dark room or parking lot like daylight, you've got to use a low-light camera, and they're expensive.
Also, any security camera and the recording equipment has to be tested and maintained on a regular basis. Very few accounts want to pay for a maintenance contract, saying "they'll do it themselves". Of course, they never do, so when they get held up, they realize that camera died a month ago, or bees got in the housing and are now raising a family.
As far as "maximizing profit", that's not yet illegal.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

I spent a lot of time searching/viewing surveillance camera footage. The poor quality analog footage even though poor in quality, does show enough for most people to be recognized from the images. It has never been a problem for law enforcement agencies to use the footage in their investigations.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

twindad wrote:

Well, having been in the security business since 1979, .........

Good explanation. Thanks!

johnsnap1947 Loc: New Fairfield, CT

Thanks for your inputs. I'll bet a lot more crimes would be solved if the identification was better. Oh well!

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

twindad wrote:

Well, having been in the security business since 1... (show quote)

Good explanaition, except I find it hard to believe that the difference in quality, especially in a well lit bank, costs $1,100 when a 600 cell phone (and that is full price) has better optics and resolution. If the security industry is facing those kind of cost differentials, they are just not trying. Better optics exist and are available on the market, memory is cheaper now than ever before, so storing those images is not an issue either. There is still no reason why bank security cameras should not be yielding better photos and/or video. None.

Capture48 Loc: Arizona

twindad wrote:

Well, having been in the security business since 1... (show quote)

Well said. :thumbup: :thumbup:

I would just add that if you or I want to shoot good photos in low light we have to buy an expensive FF camera. Normally the more they cost the better they are in low light.

Dan Copeland Loc: Hamilton Ontario Canada

dsmeltz wrote:

Good explanaition, except I find it hard to believ... (show quote)

How long will your cell phone last if it was on 24 hr 7 days non stop.
They have HD cameras for security and they are starting to come down in price, They are now available as SDI so that they can be used on the existing wiring. You use to have to change the wires to Cat5 and that was labour extensive.

I just installed 4 HD cameras for a riding school and they can zoom in and do slow motion playback of the riders with only 4 cameras one in each corner of a 100 ft by 200 ft indoor arena
They were around 500 dollars each 2 meg 1920x1080 camera and on a 42 inch TV you can see the grains of sand on the ground.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

cdvideo wrote:

How long will your cell phone last if it was on 24... (show quote)

Exactly my point. The cell phone reference only had to do with the avaiability of better optics than what is displayed of bank robbers on TV.

fstops1957 Loc: New Hampshire

It is not always a camera issue. Frequently systems are set up to use less than maximum possible camera resolution and introduce video compression to reduce file size and optimize the hard drive space. This allows the user to record more video to the system before it begins to overwrite the oldest surveillance. All of this works against the fine detail that can be recovered from the video.

Dan Copeland Loc: Hamilton Ontario Canada

fstops1957 wrote:

It is not always a camera issue. Frequently systems are set up to use less than maximum possible camera resolution and introduce video compression to reduce file size and optimize the hard drive space. This allows the user to record more video to the system before it begins to overwrite the oldest surveillance. All of this works against the fine detail that can be recovered from the video.

Just like shooting in the lowest quality JPEG on your camera and wondering why you can not do an 8x10